[Satu]

Originally Posted by XenoX101

This is pretty embarassing, obviously if you lose an overlord it will only cost you an extra overlord to catch-up in supply. I think you are getting confused by the fact that zerg needs to keep making overlords, so you might end up building two at once to compensate, but you would have had to build at least one anyway - there's no escaping that.

That was the initial idea. Its just that some people on TL.net were saying the second overlord will give you +8 supply added to max, and thus is useful. This means that it shouldn't be considered as a loss in minerals, as it serves a clear purpose (essentially, not a replacement, but a gain). I soon discovered that isn't guaranteed, and can be anything from 0-8 supply added to max depending on unit production. It took me a while to work that out, as Im not a maths wiz.

Im surprised only one person has picked up on the idea... Im probably really bad at saying my point, so I edited my initial post.

Originally Posted by riiChard

I think you're better off scouting .. And then reacting to the all in that's coming you're way instead of pulling you're calculator out and punching in numbers.

Ok then, which way should you scout?

Then most will say overlord saccing, because they consider the 100 minerals difference when they are looking at the wrong numbers and considering those over effectiveness.

Originally Posted by kellyMILKIES

Thats what shes like when the screen is focused on the in-game action at GSL, and not focused on the Code A casters. I believe nirvana should be scared and I should forget the fact she put that pic up initially against me posting this thread. ;D

[XenoX101]

Originally Posted by Zergtastic

That was the initial idea. Its just that some people on TL.net were saying the second overlord will give you +8 supply added to max, and thus is useful. This means that it shouldn't be considered as a loss in minerals, as it serves a clear purpose (essentially, not a replacement, but a gain). I soon discovered that isn't guaranteed, and can be anything from 0-8 supply added to max depending on unit production. It took me a while to work that out, as Im not a maths wiz.

You only lose 8 supply from losing an overlord, so the worst case scenario that you are at 50/50, you would be brought down to 50/42. This means you are guaranteed to go back to 50/50 after building 1 overlord, and if you build a 2nd overlord, you will have over-compensated and gone up to 50/58.

Rebuilding the overlord you sacced will put you in the same position you originally were, and this only costs you 100 minerals.

I also noticed you keep mentioning that you 'lose 100 minerals when the overlord dies', this isn't true since the mineral 'loss' doesn't come from the unit dying. I think this is where you might be double-counting because you are considering a loss of minerals where there isn't one.

[Satu]

Originally Posted by XenoX101

Rebuilding the overlord you sacced will put you in the same position you originally were, and this only costs you 100 minerals.

I also noticed you keep mentioning that you 'lose 100 minerals when the overlord dies', this isn't true since the mineral 'loss' doesn't come from the unit dying. I think this is where you might be double-counting because you are considering a loss of minerals where there isn't one.

So, rebuilding the overlord costs 100 minerals, correct.

No, you technically dont lose 100 minerals when the overlord dies, I realise that. If said correctly, it'd be that you lose a unit worth of 100 minerals when the overlord dies.

Thats right, the first overlord was worth 100 minerals. Because you spent 100 minerals on it. Notice how I put the word spent in bold throughout the entire thing. Spent. Not lost (Although technically for the first one, it is spent and then lost).

How many minerals were spent to replace it? 100.

100 + 100 = 200 minerals spent.

You agree that you need to build the second overlord, and thats two overlords, which cost 100 minerals each. Why are you saying its double counting, if you are agreeing that two overlords are needed?

[XenoX101]

Originally Posted by Zergtastic

So, rebuilding the overlord costs 100 minerals, correct.

No, you technically dont lose 100 minerals when the overlord dies, I realise that. If said correctly, it'd be that you lose a unit worth of 100 minerals when the overlord dies.

Thats right, the first overlord was worth 100 minerals. Because you spent 100 minerals on it. Notice how I put the word spent in bold throughout the entire thing. Spent. Not lost (Although technically for the first one, it is spent and then lost).

How many minerals were spent to replace it? 100.

100 + 100 = 200 minerals spent.

You agree that you need to build the second overlord, and thats two overlords, which cost 100 minerals each. Why are you saying its double counting, if you are agreeing that two overlords are needed?

Ok I see exactly where you are getting confused. Tell me, are you building an extra overlord or are you just using one of your normal overlords to scout?

1) If you are building an extra overlord before scouting, then it will cost you 100 minerals upfront, but you will have a surplus of supply, so you will not need to replace this overlord (0 minerals) since it is a surplus, it is one more than you need.

2) If you are not building an extra overlord before scouting, then it will cost you 0 minerals upfront, but you will have no surplus of supply, so you will need to replace this overlord (100 minerals) since it was one of your normal overlords, there was no surplus.

In 1) you pay for the overlord upfront, in 2) you pay for it afterwards

You are putting the two together, claiming that you spent 100 minerals to get an extra overlord and spent 100 minerals to replace it, it is either one or the other..

I think what might be happening for you is that you are doing option (1) and getting 2 overlords, but then going crazy on building units without realising you have a temporary surplus in supply, meaning that the reason you have to build another overlord is because you ate into your surplus.

[Satu]

Originally Posted by XenoX101

Ok I see exactly where you are getting confused. Tell me, are you building an extra overlord or are you just using one of your normal overlords to scout?

1) If you are building an extra overlord before scouting, then it will cost you 100 minerals upfront, but you will have a surplus of supply, so you will not need to replace this overlord (0 minerals) since it is a surplus, it is one more than you need.

2) If you are not building an extra overlord before scouting, then it will cost you 0 minerals upfront, but you will have no surplus of supply, so you will need to replace this overlord (100 minerals) since it was one of your normal overlords, there was no surplus.

In 1) you pay for the overlord upfront, in 2) you pay for it afterwards

You are putting the two together, claiming that you spent 100 minerals to get an extra overlord and spent 100 minerals to replace it, it is either one or the other..

I think what might be happening for you is that you are doing option (1) and getting 2 overlords, but then going crazy on building units without realising you have a temporary surplus in supply, meaning that the reason you have to build another overlord is because you ate into your surplus.

Im not considering that. Instead, Im keeping it general. It COULD give you a surplus, it could not. I didnt say it will not.

Originally Posted by HDPhoenix

Sigh...

At the risk of continuing this rather tedious thread, lets look at this analogy

You have a ferrari. I have a monster truck. I run my monster truck over your ferrari, cause I needed to impress that hot chick next to your ferrari.

What was the cost of my ego to impress that hot chick? Well, buying you a new ferrari. Does it matter what it cost you to buy it in the first place? No, it doesn't matter. You could have gotten it free from your rich Dad but I would still have to buy you a new car. That's my only cost.

I.e. the cost of scouting is the replacement cost, NOT the initial cost. Don't double count.

p.s I like hot chicks and monster trucks

Yes, the cost of scouting is the replacement cost, correct.

Now go back to the begginning of all of this (My post in the TL.net thread) and note that I was saying cost due to scouting. This means that Im including the cost for the initial overlord and also the replacement overlord, because you have spent minerals on both.

Whether its relevant or not you can interpret yourself, but relevance of my topic is irrelevant itself. Its more about people saying that my statement is incorrect. Im just acknowledging the fact that minerals was spent on two overlords.

[XenoX101]

Originally Posted by Zergtastic

Im not considering that. Instead, Im keeping it general. It COULD give you a surplus, it could not. I didnt say it will not.



Yes, the cost of scouting is the replacement cost, correct.

Now go back to the begginning of all of this (My post in the TL.net thread) and note that I was saying cost due to scouting. This means that Im including the cost for the initial overlord and also the replacement overlord, because you have spent minerals on both.

Whether its relevant or not you can interpret yourself, but relevance of my topic is irrelevant itself. Its more about people saying that my statement is incorrect. Im just acknowledging the fact that minerals was spent on two overlords.

Alright, whatever, believe what you want to believe. I tried to show you the light as best as I could but you seem convinced otherwise. Nevermind! Can we close this thread please? it's probably the most frustrating thing on the forums right now.

[SexyBobSmith]

Originally Posted by Zergtastic

So, rebuilding the overlord costs 100 minerals, correct.

No, you technically dont lose 100 minerals when the overlord dies, I realise that. If said correctly, it'd be that you lose a unit worth of 100 minerals when the overlord dies.

Thats right, the first overlord was worth 100 minerals. Because you spent 100 minerals on it. Notice how I put the word spent in bold throughout the entire thing. Spent. Not lost (Although technically for the first one, it is spent and then lost).

How many minerals were spent to replace it? 100.

100 + 100 = 200 minerals spent.

You agree that you need to build the second overlord, and thats two overlords, which cost 100 minerals each. Why are you saying its double counting, if you are agreeing that two overlords are needed?

The way you are looking at it is wrong. You Spent 200 minerals on building 2 overlords but you still only spend 100 minerals on scouting. The 1st overlord is built for either supply or scouting. If its built for scouting then its 100 minerals spent on scouting no arguments there. The minerals spent on building the 2nd overlord is spent on supply. It not a replacement overlord as it will not be used for scouting, it is build specifically for supply, if its not (your dont need any extra supply) then u dont need the 2nd overlord and there is no need to build it therefore you still only spent 100 minerals on scouting.

If the 1st overlord was built for supply then used for scouting and you build a second to replace it, it is still only 100 minerals spent on scouting. This is because only 100 minerals is used on scouting and the other 100 is used to increase supply. You can look at it like this: the 1st overlord is built for supply so the 100 spent resources there is for supply, if it is then used to scout, the 100 minerals used to replace that overlord then is spent on scouting. The minerals spent on the first overlord was for supply and not for scouting, if it is the used to scout then the cost of scouting is the 100 minerals spent to replace that overlord. So even though you spend 200 minerals to build two overlords, you SPEND 100 minerals to increase SUPPLY and 100 minerals for SCOUTING. You cant have spent 200 minerals to scout because only one overlord is used for scouting, the other is in fact for supply and not scouting so you do not count the minerals spent on both overlords.